ArticleScientific reports2026
XGBoost based machine learning prediction model for major adverse cardiovascular events after PCI in STEMI patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of artificial intelligence models for prediction of new-onset cardiovascular disease in patients with arterial hypertension.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Signal Detection and Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Cytokine Release Syndrome in B-Cell Maturation Antigen-Targeting Immunotherapies Using FAERS Data.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning for the early differentiation of pediatric bronchopneumonia using routine laboratory parameters.PloS one · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of an interpretable machine learning model using first-24-h postpartum nursing variables to predict delayed lactogenesis II after cesarean delivery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) demands urgent reperfusion. Despite major strides in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) persist, calling for more comprehensive risk evaluation and management. Clinical data from 1,011 STEMI patients who underwent PCI were included in this study. A total of 37 clinical variables-including demographic characteristics, hemodynamic parameters, and laboratory indicators-were initially collected. Six machine learning algorithms, including random forest (RF), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso), support vector machine (SVM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and feedforward neural network (FNN), were employed to select key predictors and construct a MACE prediction model. Partial dependence plots (PDP) and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) were subsequently used to interpret model variables and visualize the decision-making process. The XGBoost model, based on nine key predictors, demonstrated the best performance (AUC: 0.81 for the training set, 0.71 for the test set). SHAP analysis identified LCX occlusion, KILLIP classification, lymphocyte count, LVEF, AST, monocyte count, gender, alcohol consumption, and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were positively associated with the risk of MACE, whereas higher lymphocyte levels and male sex were negatively associated with the occurrence of MACE. PDP results revealed the synergistic effects of AST, LCX, monocyte count, LVEF, and lymphocyte count on MACE risk. This study provides a clinically promising predictive model for MACE risk assessment in STEMI patients post-PCI. The model, using interpretable methods, identifies key clinical indicators that critically influence MACE occurrence, offering valuable insights for clinical decision-making and patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.